Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

You can add a number to infinity, but it still has the same 'magnitude'.

Was he thinking of any particular infinity, or 'transfinite' number, as defined by Georg Cantor?

There an infinite number of such numbers, with the 'smallest' being the number of integers, labelled Aleph-0, Aleph being the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. He used the term 'cardinality' to refer to the 'size' of each transfinite number.

Sadly, Cantor thought his theory had been communicated to him by God, and he didn't want to refer to the 'transfinite' numbers as 'infinite', because he figured only God could be truly infinite...

Sometimes 'infinity' is reserved for Aleph-0.

David Hilbert was one the greatest admirers and defenders of this work.

John-Mark and a defender of his on youtube were implying that if the Catholic God created from the concept of non-being that existed separately from him (creatio ex nihilo) , that that would make the Catholic god FINITE.

Adding to a quantity doesn't make it less than infinity, so I decided to ridicule this mathematical illiteracy.

John-Mark clearly wasn't talking about anything supported by an actual mathematician. His full quote was "since you can't add to infinity, our existence is no addition to the infinite perfect existence of God. Rather, our existence is a limited finite share of God's existence."

It's hilariously retarded to imply that infinite quantities are a limit for addition and that they prevent other things from being able to exist as if it's a maximum limit for all there can be.

An infinity of bags of marbles with 10 marbles each gives you 10 infinite groups of marbles, so this implication of JM is moronic.

John-Mark and a defender of his on youtube were implying that if the Catholic God created from the concept of non-being that existed separately from him (creatio ex nihilo) , that that would make the Catholic god FINITE.

Adding to a quantity doesn't make it less than infinity, so I decided to ridicule this mathematical illiteracy.

John-Mark clearly wasn't talking about anything supported by an actual mathematician. His full quote was "since you can't add to infinity, our existence is no addition to the infinite perfect existence of God. Rather, our existence is a limited finite share of God's existence."

It's hilariously retarded to imply that infinite quantities are a limit for addition and that they prevent other things from being able to exist as if it's a maximum limit for all there can be.

An infinity of bags of marbles with 10 marbles each gives you 10 infinite groups of marbles, so this implication of JM is moronic.

I agree - applying the mathematics of finite numbers to infinity completely misunderstands the nature of 'infinity'. It is a really dumb argument.

The biggest dodge in Theism is to assume God resides in some separate 'realm', to avoid the question of "if God created the Universe, who created God?".

Still needs an explanation for God - he cannot be responsible for why there is 'existence' of any kind, since He is part of 'what exists', or 'what IS', so he cannot be the origin of whatever 'realm' he inhabits, even if He is somehow 'everything' himself.

All that stuff is not in the original beliefs anyway, it is the invention of Theology, based on the fallacies of Plato.

JM also had the retard argument that "being (existence) had to be infinite because if there was a limit, you would have to ask what's on the other side of that limit. And you can't say non-being because you would be saying that non-existence exists which is a contradiction".

He misses that if something is past the limit of existence, it's outside of existence and therefore you wouldn't be saying that it exists at all, LOL.

Not to mention that the metaphysical state of existence is not quantitative. if my TV is in the state of being turned on, there is no measurable quantity of it's switched-on-ness. It's the same thing with existence - it's not a quantity, therefore God can't allow us to exist by giving us a limited share in his existence.

"Christianity is right - this guy's argument is in favor of Christianity, therefore his argument must be right".

Even back when I was a Christian, I still thought that arguments like "God must be real because how else did the earth get here?" were stupid - even from a CHRISTIAN perspective, I thought it was stupid buy into illogical arguments just because they defended my belief - the funny thing is that when I would point this out to fellow Christians, they would question my faith and wonder if I might be a closet atheist, just because I had the intellectual honesty not to use logical fallacies to support a position which I believed.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical

"Christianity is right - this guy's argument is in favor of Christianity, therefore his argument must be right".

That's it, in a nutshell.

The more debates I watch on YouTube from apologists, the more depressing I find it to know that there are so many adults that suffer from such arrested development, intellectually.

The fact that they cannot pick up on the cognitive dissonances in the stream of drivel from these apologists demonstrates how dim they are.

But, as a matter of fact, even guys like William Lane Craig never actually extend their necks beyond saying that 'it seems much more plausible that...' , which is merely relying on intuition, which is the 'What goes up, MUST come down' logical fallacy of ignorance.

The A-Z of apologetics is virtually all the employment of an individual's personal intuitions of empirically observed natural reality, in drawing parallels between A and B, in an attempt to have the individual convince himself that A and B are analogous, and therefore if A is known to be accurate, then B must also be accurate.

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Even back when I was a Christian, I still thought that arguments like "God must be real because how else did the earth get here?" were stupid - even from a CHRISTIAN perspective, I thought it was stupid buy into illogical arguments just because they defended my belief - the funny thing is that when I would point this out to fellow Christians, they would question my faith and wonder if I might be a closet atheist, just because I had the intellectual honesty not to use logical fallacies to support a position which I believed.

I believe that's the case with virtually all of the obviously more intelligent theists. They must know that their drivel actually doesn't hold water, but, it gives them a bunch to 'argue' about, and defend, which gives the illusion of 'content'.

The bible can be argued about for an entire lifetime, but it no way does this give any veracity to any of the conjecture that is in it.

It's all anecdotal, which means it's worth is exactly 'squat'.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

The real shape of Noah's ark according to the British Museum's Keeper Irving Finkel. Has an uncanny resemblance to the current understanding of the shape of the Universe. I'm just sayin' Things to know; things to know.